Karnataka HC quashes FCRA cancellation of K Ullas Karanth's trust

BENGALURU: In big relief for Bengaluru-based Centre for Wildlife Studies (CWS) founded by scientist K Ullas Karanth, Karnataka high court has quashed a series of orders issued by the ministry of home affairs that led to cancellation of the registration of the organisation.

In a series of flip-flops, MHA slapped a suspension order on CWS under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act on March 5,2021, extended it, and again cancelled it on September 4, 2023, following a show-cause notice on December 3, 2021.CWS challenged the same, contending the cancellation order doesn't bear any reason. It said personal hearing under Section 14(2) of FCRA Act was not given to Karanth, son of Jnanpith laureate K Shivaram Karanth. On the other hand, MHA argued there is no requirement to grant personal hearing before cancellation of certificate of registration under the Act .
Justice M Nagaprasanna said Section 14(2) permits cancellation of registration, Section 14(3) would bar such an entity from registration for three years. "Therefore, it cannot be said Section 14(2) is restricted only to hearing, and hearing would mean only issuance of a show-cause notice,'' the judge added.
Merchant can't be fined for taking circuitous route: HC
Bengaluru: In the absence of law, a merchant cannot be faulted for taking a circuitous route instead of a linear one in variance with what he/she has stated to the authorities in documents as long as the travel time and the destination remain the same, the high court said.
"As the law now stands in Karnataka, a merchant or his convoy is free to choose the route for movement of goods from the point of origin to the destination. If he has specified a particular route in the consignment documents, it would not come in the way of that route being altered, though the destination cannot be," the bench said.
On December 2, 2021, officers intercepted a conveyance of M/s Transway India Transport, Bengaluru, at Bommasandra industrial area, about 20km from the state capital. The goods from Mumbai were to be delivered to several consignees in the city. However, the authorities slapped a tax liability of Rs 3,25423 coupled with a penalty of Rs 21,41,239 on the company under Section 129(3) of the GST Act-2017 for "transportation and diversion of goods beyond the place of destination."
The company challenged the order, claiming that it had necessary permission to move towards Peenya industrial area but the driver took a wrong turn towards Bommasandra industrial area. On June 23, 2022, a single bench had quashed the levy of tax and penalty. The department appealed against the order. However, the division bench noted that the right to movement whether by foot, cart, boat, aircraft or on a horseback, is constitutionally guaranteed to the citizens as a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(d) and ordinarily avails to the merchants too when they carry goods for trade. "It is open to a trader to take goods to the destination point in whichever route he opts, unless the law otherwise requires it, the destination point being intact. Such a right needs to be recognised as of necessity to trade or business," the bench noted.
"What is required by law is the furnishing of consignment documents and specified particulars of the consignor, consignee, goods, route maps and destinations. When law does not require giving reasons for changing the route, whether the reason offered by the driver is true or false, pales into insignificance. However, this does not mean that a driver can lie with impunity, the motto Satyameva Jayate having been inscribed in our national emblem i.e., Ashoka Sthamba," the bench added.